www.lukasmaestlegoer.comhttp://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com
Swordmaker Fri, 30 Nov 2018 17:14:04 +0000en-GBhourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9http://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/cropped-lukas_vektorgrafik-32x32.jpgwww.lukasmaestlegoer.comhttp://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com
3232Steel alloys and what makes a good swordhttp://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/2016/05/08/steel-alloys-and-what-makes-a-good-sword/
http://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/2016/05/08/steel-alloys-and-what-makes-a-good-sword/#commentsSun, 08 May 2016 14:27:56 +0000http://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/?p=261Why is it that people are so incredibly fixated on steel type? I just had a lengthy discussion with a guy on why I was using the steel I use and not what he thought best, etc. You all know, there are ENDLESS discussions on what‘s the best possible sword or knife steel and incredibly, people never seem to get bored of that.
„That steel has just a little bit more carbon but that one has vanadium and did you see that test over bladeforums, they hacked chain apart and steel xy totally blew the other steels out of the water, it had one nick less in the end and resharpening was 5 seconds quicker…“

Let me state one thing: Yes, steel choice is something that plays a role and a combination of a good steel with the proper heat treatment is necessary for a well-performing sword but it‘s just ONE aspect of what makes a sword! And, it‘s not even the most important one!

The best steel in the world with optimal heat treatment doesn‘t mean squat if it handles with the grace of a tire iron! Or cuts with the efficiency of a baseball bat! Or is so flexible that you have no feel for pressure in the bind and every blow punches through your defensive action! Or… you get my point.
What you SHOULD be discussing is this: what requirements does a sword need to fulfill in order to function as the highly sophisticated weapon it is? The only way to answer that is to look at originals and the way swords were employed. Use of mass, blade and edge geometry, harmonic balance, behaviour in motion… those are the points that matter. Those are the points that allow a swordsman to employ his weapon in a way that is safe (for him ) and efficient.

Steel quality and heat treat factor in at the end. As long as steel and HT are not so crappy the sword fails in the first encounter, all other factors matter so much more. I would rather have a blade made by someone who understands exactly what a sword needs to feel like but has only access to mystery steel and guesswork heat treatment (in other words: like many antiques) than a piece of super-steel, heat treated to perfection using modern equipment but made by someone with no understanding of a sword‘s intent and purpose.

Now, ideally you would have both in one, right? But please, stop obsessing on what steel and heat treat is best, just leave it to the maker to decide, that technical aspect is quite easily taken care of, especially nowadays. And, most generally used sword steels like 5160, 6150, 80CrV2, 9260, etc perform so similarly for the intents of a sword when properly heat treated that a difference is hardly noticeable.

What you should be concerned with as customers is whether your maker knows what a sword needs to feel like because that‘s something modern, easily available engineering doesn‘t help you with. That part requires studying originals and much in the same way as an auto mechanic needs to know how to drive a car does sword making require at least a solid basic understanding of how to use a sword.

To sum up: leave me alone if you want to discuss 10 different steel alloys but please, feel free to begin a conversation on proper distal taper on, say, a 30“ Langes Messer!

]]>http://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/2016/05/08/steel-alloys-and-what-makes-a-good-sword/feed/4Sword sharpnesshttp://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/2016/05/08/sword-sharpness/
http://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/2016/05/08/sword-sharpness/#respondSun, 08 May 2016 14:21:21 +0000http://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/?p=259Swords need sharp edges (duh). We have a more or less precise idea of how swords are supposed to be used from looking at historical manuals and it is obvious that brute strength and hammering is neither necessary nor the sensible thing to do. While the manuals do tell us to fight with all our strength, many techniques very obviously rely on having a sharp edge to do damage (for example push or pull slices). And of course, a regular cut or hau benefits greatly from a sharp edge as well, despite the impact trauma it would also inflict.

So that swords aren‘t clubs used to hammer at armor or break bones is pretty clear to anybody with a serious interest in the matter (what the „uneducated masses“ and Hollywood believe is an entirely different matter of course).

However, there is a lot of debate and discussion on just how sharp a sword should be. Terms such as „sword-sharp“, „paper-cutting sharp“, „shaving sharp“ and more get tossed around.

Let‘s first look at what decides how sharp a (sword) blade is. There are several factors at play here, I will look at mainly two of them: edge shape and polish. Steel alloy, hardness, etc all play a role as well of course. But that is a topic for another time

When people say „the sharper a blade, the more fragile“, they mean the shape, the acuteness of the edge. The finer the angle, the less material there is at the edge to support it, the more prone it is to damage. The easier it cuts as well though… (all in general!)

Peter Johnsson gives a general edge angle for many medieval swords of between 20° and 25° (per side), giving an overall angle of 40-50°. This is not much different from the edges seen on many japanese nihonto and appears to be a good balance between acuteness and edge support. Now, edge shape is one thing, it doesn‘t say anything about the actual blade geometry behind that edge. The angle of the „primary bevel“ can vary immensely, as can the shape. A flat bevel that transitions in the convex edge is just one among many possibilities, other basic shapes include convex or concave/hollow ground bevels. It‘s a complex issue with many variables but there are certain basic principles that can help when trying to figure out why a sword cuts the way it does. Looking at swords that are generally seen as good cutters, it becomes obvious that they share several traits, such as thin, wide blades with a shallow primary edge angle (quite often the edge angle doesn‘t have to be particularly acute, a somehwat more obtuse edge can be required for durability reasons due to the thin blade body). A certain amount of stiffness is also quite beneficial though it is less crucial than on swords intended more for the thrust.

Now that we have (very briefly and nowhere near in depth as would be possible) looked at edge shape, let‘s move on to the other aspect that plays a role in edge sharpness: the polish. This is something that is still not well understood by many sword enthusiasts. An edge of a certain angle (say, 22° each side) can be either quite dull or very, very sharp. The basic shape of the edge (and, consequently, the durability!) is no different. The difference is in the polish. An edge that is taken up to 2000 grit and then stropped on leather bites substantially more aggressively than an edge of the same shape but left at, say, 600 or 800 grit. While the difference in performance isn‘t so noticeable on targets like plastic bottles or bare tatami mats, once the target is wrapped in a layer of linen (or several), the performance difference is immense. The less polished sword will quite likely just bounce off the target and only leave a mark due to its impact but it will not be able to actually cut the linen.

Seeing as naked people usually weren‘t what you‘d have encountered back then, I think this tells us something. I wouldn‘t go so far to assume that all medieval sword always were that sharp. Just as today one person‘s pocket knife is shaving sharp while another‘s rather dull, I would imagine it varied back then as well, for numerous reasons. A sword that has dulled a bit is still a useful weapon and I would imagine especially under campaign (or other) circumstances a quick touch up with a stone now and then would be possible but stropping with leather is a quite tedious process without a slack belt sander (though Matt Easton told that one anecdote about some tribe always polishing their sword on their leather shields during a rest (I think)).

However, I do believe that „in general“ we can assume that swords were honed to a level that might surprise many modern sword enthusiasts. I certainly think that it is time to abandon beliefs like „a sword only needs a blunt chisel-edge, it works with a splitting effect“ or „barely paper-cutting sharp is all that‘s necessary“. And especially „a very sharp edge (always) is very fragile and shouldn‘t be put on a sword“.

]]>http://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/2016/05/08/sword-sharpness/feed/0Hand-made and perfectionhttp://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/2016/05/08/hand-made-and-perfection/
http://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/2016/05/08/hand-made-and-perfection/#commentsSun, 08 May 2016 14:18:25 +0000http://www.lukasmaestlegoer.com/?p=257This is something that I struggle with on a frequent basis. My swords are entirely hand-made, there are no CNC-machines or other computer-guided devices. A set square, a compass and a set of old calipers (my grand-father‘s) are my only technical devices for measuring stuff. And me eyes of course. I tend to do a lot of eye-balling. I would say that I spend as much time looking at my work as I spend actually doing something (grinding, filing, etc).

It is inevitable (or is it?) that despite my best efforts, there are small inconsitencies and variations in my pieces. This is generally seen as to be expected in hand-crafted items. Yet I struggle immensely to not go nuts about that. It is often said that our modern mind and eyes are so used to immaculate machine-made items that we can‘t help but look for the same perfection in everything. I don‘t know, maybe. If we look at originals, it does become obvious that they must have had a different mind set. Even the highest quality swords (just to stay on topic here, this goes for a variety of objects) often display such obvious asymmetry that it would be utterly impossible to sell the same sword nowadays. Didn‘t seem to bother them back then and I don‘t believe they wouldn‘t have been capable of „doing better“.

Nowadays, „hand-made“ is very often used as an excuse for shoddy workmanship. I lost count of how many times I‘ve seen or heard someone praise a sword/knife saying how it was all hand-made and by necessity rough and rustically looking. I don‘t agree with that. Hand-made doesn‘t mean shoddy. The human hand is capable of incredibly intricate and precise work.

Shoddy isn‘t what comes to my mind when looking at high quality originals either, despite their often obvious visual flaws. On the contrary, I find those flaws are not bothering me, I in fact like that touch of the human hand there. So what‘s the difference? A wavy line is a wavy line, right? How can something be poor work here but give the piece character there (as it is often said)?

Quite frankly, I don‘t know. Is the origin different? Lack of skill or carelessness in one situation, skillfull and experienced yet quick, maybe rushed work in the other? I guess it‘s possible that sword makers had to work quickly back then but I think it‘s more complex than that. Is it linked to the quality or quantity of the flaw? A little tiny wobble may be forgiven but a in-your-face asymmetry may not? That sounds tempting but it can‘t be the main or only reason. What seems like a small irregularity, almost unnoticeable to a beginner, often is blatantly obvious to a master. So where would we draw the line between what‘s acceptable and what is not? More specifically, and that‘s where I struggle, where do I draw the line? What flaws should I see as inevitable and inherent to the craft and what as not acceptable?

Here‘s my problem. I want to recreate historical swords. I want to recreate the way they handle, feel and perform. However, I could never bring myself to make a sword with a so obviously crooked fuller or wandering spine as seen on the IMO nonetheless beautiful pieces that inspire me. So what am I doing? A modern interpretation of the theme, in accordance with my modern sense for aesthetics? Not sure that‘s what I want to do… I apologize for the rambling and lack of clear structure. Just something I think about… comments welcome.